– Celine McInerney, along with Geraldine Haese, Kim Evans are the three General Counsels of Adelaie Universtiy (interesting it’s all women) that are writing rude threatening legal letters to ISPs to have content about Rosemary Owens removed, which I see as unethical

– James McWha and Virginia Deegan are spamming forums promoting Adelaide Uni’s adoption of Gmail which Cambridge has just dropped

– Kristina Noicos was asked to “get her tits out for the boys”

– Lavinia Emmett-Grey is an attention seeking left-wing monkey

– Ngaire Naffine is accused of biased left wing research

– Peta Johannson is a biased left-wing headhunt

– Prof Rosemary Owens is the Head of School of the University Adelaide, contactable at 8303 5172, 8303 4344, Room 1.20 in Ligertwood Building, Bachelor in Education/History, and teaches Labour and IR Law, Australian Constitutional Law and Legal Research and Writing

– Rosemary Owens “reads” the law and became famous this way

– Rosemary Owens can’t stop bragging Adelaide University is second oldest law school. Also the most outdated thinker, Rosemary Owens is.

– Rosemary Owens edits her own wikipedia page

– Rosemary Owens extreme left is apart of UN’s fair work body

– Rosemary Owens has an all-time low approval rating

– Rosemary Owens has been asked by petition to quit her job

– Rosemary Owens has committed MOST SERIOUS MISCONDUCT to restrict freedom of speech of political right to criticize PUBLIC State Rann government university, which is a breach of Crimes Act 1914 s28, rosemary owns should go to jail for 3 years

– Rosemary Owens has failed to grab Wikipedia views despite spam

– Rosemary Owens is a spin doctor, who is described as a “tyrant”

– Rosemary Owens is an “acting” dean

– Rosemary Owens is chair of work/life balance advisory committee in south australia government

– Rosemary Owens is changing the law degree from LLB to JD

– Rosemary Owens is claimed by badbadteacher.com to have had sex with an underage student, which is considered pedophile in the United States

– Rosemary Owens is described as “unprofessional” and “not integral”

– Rosemary Owens is described as an “extreme feminist”

– Rosemary Owens is discriminating against the Christian priest at the law school

– Rosemary Owens is dropping the standards at Adelaide University

– Rosemary Owens is leaking info about students to David Meyer from Lynch Meyer, sponsor of Adelaide Law school scholarship, David Meyer is manager of Professional Ethics Committee at Law Society of South Australia

– Rosemary Owens is not impartial and discriminates against the right

– Rosemary Owens is only a Professor because she upgraded her status from A/Professor to Professor herself

– Rosemary Owens is sucking on cock

– Rosemary Owens is the Committee of Experts for the International Labour Organization of UN United Nations

– Rosemary Owens is the most unpopular dean EVER in the 250yr history

– Rosemary Owens is trying to hire and promote as many feminist extreme left-staff as possible, “helping” Mike Rann

– Rosemary Owens is trying to spam marketing propoganda

– Rosemary Owens looks like a fat pig

– Rosemary Owens makes legal threats to web sites such as ratemyteachers.com after she received bad comments (LOTS of them!)

– Rosemary Owens may have been involved with a fall out with Wollongong

Although the students writing have evidently used a dramatic tone to convey their thoughts the theme of Rosemary Owens and her branch stacking the University of Adelaide with feminist researchers is an alarming problem. It’s not so much a problem of corruption as it is one of biasness, which in academia is not acceptable. For instance if you investigate into allegations that Rosemary Owens made against a 16 year old student at the Adelaide Law School several years back, you find that as apart of the conciliatory process she recruited Clem McIntyre with which she wrote a research paper as the mediator, and used evidence from Virginia Deegan who she was also close friends with. How can we be assured that the University’s internal processes haven’t been afflicted in some way?

During her tenure, Owens is also alleged for using unlawful methods of spamming, as well as using takedown notices to control her reputation, rather than redressing student problems.

There is also clear evidence of the use of forceful tactics against students, shouting at students from the student magazine for failing to censor content that she didn’t like (apparently it had something to do with students rating courses at the Adelaide Law School).

It is clear from the evidence that Rosemary Owens is a dinosaur who lived in a previous century. Her forceful personality is not surprising when you consider her weight: the only way you get to being that obese is clear neglect for your own health, which can only be done with some serious mental health problems. I don’t think it was necessary for the student to refer to her as a “fat pig”, but when students are faced with a “tyrant” as Owens was described, it seems there is little option but to pursue justice in this manner, I guess

In an interview article with the Hilarian, Rosemary Owens also indicated that she felt that she would always be “exposed” and “uncovered” for who she really is. She thought that it would portray her as someone who is really humble. Instead, it raised the problem of what is known as “Imposter syndrome”. It isn’t a diagnosable mental illness per se, but it can indicate a personality disorder

I also find it kind of hilarious (excuse the pun) that Prof Owens never associated her feelings of “Imposter syndrome” with her actually wreaking major havoc throughout the Adelaide Law School. Did she really dissociate her controversial activity at the Adelaide Law School, as possibly resulting in major dissatisfaction from students?

This is a political rant about Prof Rosemary Owens, Anne Hewitt, Judith Gardam, Susan Bartie, Laura Grenfell, Ngaire Naffine, Bernadette Richards: and whether 3/4 of a law school should be composed of women with extreme feminist thinking. Rosemary Owens once publicly stated in a law school newspaper admitting to being an extreme “feminist”. It is by no coincidence thus that half the Adelaide Law School staff is the “sexist seven” group (source removed), which apparently is a nickname inferring they are extreme left-wing feminists. I further note that all of the listed individuals are women. As an investigative journalist, I then went on to their respective home pages, and found that their journals and “professional” papers indicated that they had written at least one paper on FEMINISM. The issue here is whether there is a problem of professional impropriety on behalf of Professor Rosemary Owens, by selecting personnel not based on aptitude, but on political belief.

Obviously extreme feminist in belief, the question is whether Prof Rose Owens should be in a position as the Head of School. If she does not disassociate herself from being impartial, is it not obvious what the effects of being feminist will have on the school? I know one thing for sure, take for instance a Christian priest (I won’t name names), in my opinion, he will NEVER be promoted to a senior position by Rosemary Owens due to the fact he is Christian, despite he has had one of the HIGHEST approval ratings, and teaches FAR better than many feminists. UNJUST?? Has the University gone to an all-time low? The problem is that your political position changes all of your beliefs. If you are extreme left, this means that you literally neglect the entire centre and right of the political spectrum. I think the University of Adelaide must think seriously about its future if it wants to be taken seriously by the legal profession (and for that reason, all other professions). Then is the question of this article (source removed), which stated that Rosemary had sex with one of her students prior to her 18th birthday, with one user speculating, dated December 12, 2009 at 9:18 pm, that there may be links with the Adelaide Law School Rosemary Owens. Then there is a petition entitled “We hereby ask the University of Adelaide’s Law School Acting Dean Professor Rosemary Owens to drop her “job”, in face of her leftist agendas, and the lowering standards of the LL.B, indicated by other Law school’s suggestion of a JD.” (source removed). The question is thus whether the future legal profession should consist of extreme thinking left-wing “feminist” agendas at the University. (source removed)

All we know for sure is this:
1) ROSEMARY OWENS IS TRYING TO HIRE (AND PROMOTE) AS MANY FEMINISTS IN HER TERM AS THE HEAD OF SCHOOL AS POSSIBLE
2) THE STANDARDS AT ADELAIDE LAW SCHOOL ARE GOING DOWNHILL AFTER OWENS WAS APPOINTED AS HEAD OF SCHOOL
3) ROSEMARY OWENS APPROVAL RATING IS AT AN ALL-TIME LOW AND MANY CONCERN SHE WILL HAVE A HEART ATTACK (DUE TO OBESITY)

You may want to read below to see some of what others have been saying:

1) Please remember that opinions/seeming facts in this article are only opinions of my own, and may not represent opinions of other students; I am using my First Amendment to the United States Constitution rights in posting this material; which prohibits the right to infringe freedom of press and speech. Anyway, this Rosemary Owens person has been as big a joke as these other people called the “SEXIST SEVEN”, including Anne Hewitt, Judith Gardam, Susan Bartie, Laura Grenfell, Ngaire Naffine, Bernadette Richards, and of course Rosemary Owens. This raging war continues as another Adelaide University unit faces even more problems – the Adelaide Law School, which continues to face problems with a team that’s been dubbed “the sexist seven”, headed by the Dean, Professor Rosemary Owens.

2) Who is Susan Bartie and why is she making a MOCKERY out of the Law School? (March 11, 2009): There is a hoax page relating to Barty online (source removed),self promotion material (source removed), a new found MySpace page source removed ), and a news site about her modelling career (source removed ). I was also a little distressed about a Google-related CHILD PORN removal entry (source removed). And this is not to even start mentioning a YouTube video (source removed ) What a great semester 2009 is going to be.

3) James McWha and Virginia Deegan SPAM NEWS FORUMS over signing up with Gmail: Virginia Deegan is accused of duplicating news of signing up with Gmail over the Internet. Unfortunately for Adelaide Uni however, this is nothing more than hype, as all the Administrator at Adelaide Uni (Virginia Deegan; second wife of Brian Deegan ñ judge who studied at Adelaide University) did was go to Google Apps (source removed) and sign up for an accountÖ And even worse, they havenít even completed the process yet of adding all the students!Anyway, always full of self-promotion, Virginia Deegan was not available for media comment. Brian Deegan also capitalized on the death of his son with the book “Remembering Josh: Bali, a fatherís story”; and lost in a landslide at the 2004 federal election, at which he defected away from being a magistrate. Here are the issues, first with Virginia Deegan. As the second wife of Brian Deegan, my question is whether politically Deegan should have even been allowed to marry. This is a problem with our state law. Clearly, there has been professional impropriety. Next of all, it is obvious that both Virginia and Brian Deegan were hired not based on aptitude, but sorry for the death of their son, Joshua Deegan. Unfortunately, we don’t care about that. Nobody does. It’s a tough world. Then of course is if the extreme feminist Brian Deegan “defected” from being a magistrate, whether his wife should even be allowed on a position as the Board of Directors in a Government company (superannuation, as I remember). She should be banned by the Rann Government, but it looks as if this was an “accidental oversight”. More like a grouping of extreme feminists. University of Adelaide’s James McWha has been criticized for BLATANT ADVERTISING! Some request to take him to a civil court.

4) Apparently, itís not the first time Adelaide Uniís been an “A**HOLE” to others though. Check this out.. they threatened the University of Wollongong too! TOo bad the news people donít cover the ENTIRE story! source removed (and yes itís still on the official University of Wolloggong website) If a University like Wollongong University has stated Adeaide University is ridiculous; by God’s word it must be!

5) Post dated (source removed) September 30, 2008 at 4:09 am, which states that Rosemary Owens “LOOKS FAT”. Then somebody on September 30, 2008 at 4:10 am stated “i dont care ask someone who gives a fuck!” Then on October 2, 2008 at 1:03 am , another wrote “stop spaming motherf***er!” Then it is stated that Adelaide University Law School is “pathetic”, again remarking that the Dean, Professor Rosemary Owens, is “leftist” Then they call Owens whatyoumacallit, who “freaks” them out, apparently. My personal opinion is that if you are overweight, so much that you are nearly going to have heart attack, can hardly stand up, is ridiculously difficult to look at a mirror – you really need to go.

Please note that I have only stated my opinions, based on facts which are readily available online. Please read around for yourself.

It is a clear problem, and it is one that requires a political solution. Politicians in South Australia must step up their effort to clear up this problem at the Adelaide Law School. For instance the last Liberal Party scholar at the law school was Amanda Vanstone (former MInister for Immigration) who has now left. It is not the point of a law school body as the author has pointed out, that all papers relate to “feminism”.

As the author has also pointed out I think it is a worthy point that the issue of professional impropriety be raised, because discrimination on political belief is not only a labor law problem (to which Rosemary Owens professes in-depth knowledge in), but also a discriminatory, and even criminal problem because it nears breaching another person’s political right (there is obviously room for different interpretation on the statute). The issue of Paul Babie ( the priest) not being able to gain promotion because of his religious belief also raises problems of religious discrimination (something which Owens seems to be blinded to)

The point about Rosemary Owens having a heart attack because of her obesity, although crude, is also a relevant point of discussion because it raises a problem of mental health. Rosemary Owens was also known as being a megalomaniac who would shout at students, almost bordering on antisocial personality disorder (what is known in common parlance as a psychopath). In corporate workplaces of psychopaths, there is usually quick turnover of staff (which occurred with staff drifting over to the UniSA Law School), and it can also co-exist with things like over eating (leading to obesity). It was clear that the UoA law school workplace was just not that great and so staff and students left for UniSA, and it was a huge misuse of taxpayer funds

> A former University of Adelaide law school staff member has stepped
> forward to expose the Head of School, Rosemary Owens, as having a
> \”vendetta\” against (STUDENT NAME REMOVED), using \”whatever means necessary, legal
> or not\”. Owens was accused of having the vendetta against (STUDENT NAME REMOVED),
> as a result of racially discriminating against the 16-year-old, which
> gave her the title \”white supremist\”. Documents however, show that at
> the time, Owens was accused of not racial discrimination, but
> religious discrimination. Documents show that Rosemary Owens, of the
> far left faction at the law school, apparently was sourced with
> information from two tort law teachers, Bernadette Richards and Susan
> Bartie, also from the left faction of the law school, that (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) was
> christian. Yet what is even more concerning is allegations Rosemary
> Owens had the \”hots\” for 16-year-old (STUDENT NAME REMOVED), and after being
> rejected by him on numerous occasions, made it her life goal to
> \”destroy\” (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) by any means, \”legal or not\”. This explanation of
> course explains a lot, and explains the reason for the extensive
> actions Owens took against (STUDENT NAME REMOVED), including seeking legal
> action. Explanations such as the fact Owens disliked comparisons law
> students made of Owens against the \”(STUDENT NAME REMOVED) Law Videos\” which
> competed with UofA course material, are far less convincing. Documents
> say Owens purportedly told Richards and Bartie over a conversation
> that the left faction should find any means, \”legal or not\”, to
> \”destroy\” (STUDENT NAME REMOVED).
>
> The source, then said that Rosemary Owens used her connections with IT
> head Virginia Deegan, also of the left faction, to fabricate a an
> email allegedly written by (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) criticising Rosemary Owens\’
> teaching, calling her \”fat\”, \”incompetent\” to teach law, and saying
> she was \”unfit\” to be the head of school. When called to see Owens in
> her office about the matter, (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) described the meeting, later in
> documentary form, as \”abusive, harassing, threatening and
> intimidating\”, and a complaint was filed to SAPOL on the grounds of
> \”unlawful stalking\”. It is unclear whether (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) sought a
> restraining order against Owens. In the documents, (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) denied
> having ever criticised Owens\’ teaching, saying he thought she was a
> \”fantastic\” dean, but should take an open view to his Waverly Labs
> lecture videos, and not ban students from using them. It is assumed
> Owens was of great dislike of (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) due to his success as an
> independent \”consultant lecturer\”, helping students pass law without
> attending lectures.
>
> (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) did allude to his criticism of Owens at the time for using
> \”hearsay evidence\”, accusing Rose of \”abusing court process\”, because
> since the source of the emails couldn\’t be proven, Owens had said (STUDENT NAME REMOVED)
> would need to see a counselor. Although this matter would not have
> been extraordinary, the intent of Rosemary Owens was clear, because
> she knew well that students who were redirected to counseling, would
> have to have such matters reported to the South Australian Supreme
> Court on admission to the bar.
>
> \”It was all about Rosemary Owens abusing her power as a left-wing
> dean, to force a christian 16-year-old to say he had \’counseling\’ to
> discredit him,\” a political studies lecturer from the University said.
>
> \”For all the ideals that Owens stood for – independence, honesty,
> integrity – realistically, all she was dishonest, a liar, and spin
> tactician.\”
>
> But we all know the truth. Was it more likely a 16-year-old christian
> was dishonest and lying, or was it more likely 65-year-old left-wing
> factionist Rosemary Owens was?
>
> Documents showed (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) cried at that meeting with Owens, in what was
> described later as \”cold\”.
>
> Knowing Owens\’ intention, (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) ignored Owens\’ requests, despite
> Owens attempting to stalk (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) through email messages, snail mail,
> telephone, and all other means.
>
> With the matter unresolved, Owens, knowing an academic conduct board
> couldn\’t convict (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) on the (lack of) evidence, decided to
> intimidate him through the mediation processes of the University.
> Grabbing the assistance of \”Clem McIntyre\” for use as the mediator,
> Owens headed to \”solving\” the matter. Although Clem MacIntyre was
> known widely as the head of politics at the university, MacIntyre
> received much criticism at the time for left-wing bias in his research
> at the time. Although the fact McIntyre had co-written research papers
> with Rosemary Owens, and such conflict of interest should have been
> raised at the time, it wasn\’t, and the matter went ahead, with Owens\’
> close friend and fellow leftist McIntyre \”mediating\” the matter.
>
> Forwarded emails purporting to have come from (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) with the
> mediator show that he had claimed the mediation was \”coercing\” him to
> own up to matters uninvolved with him. However, his resistance was
> apparently futile, because Clement MacIntyre was quoted at one time
> saying \”if you don\’t accept the terms of this agreement, the matter
> will be forwarded to the academic conduct board – and because you have
> already stated that it was \’more probable than not\’ the messages
> originated from you, you will be found guilty\”. In the document,
> (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) explained to the student adviser that Clem McIntyre took his
> quote out of context, because what he really did say was \”I\’m awfully
> sorry these things have been written about [Rosemary] Owens, but it\’s
> not me – I think Rosemary Owens is a fantastic dean – so, although I
> understand it\’s more probable than not that the messages originated
> from me, because an ITS document says it was \’likely\’ to be me – it
> just isn\’t\”. The agreement was simply that (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) had to see a youth
> worker, and that the matter would have to be reported to the SASC.
> Given this wasn\’t very onerous, and because (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) was in only the 2nd
> year of his 5-year law degree, he had no option but to succumb to the
> request of Rosemary Owens.
>
> \”There is a direct parallel to what Rosemary Owens did and rape,\” a
> sociology lecturer from the University of Adelaide said, on the
> condition they remain unnamed.
>
> \”Given we start from the presumption Rose Owens developed a sexual
> interest in the 16-year-old, which led to her using \’any means\’ to
> destroy him, trying to force him to see a counselor to reflect badly
> on his bar admission, and then forcing him to an agreement he had no
> choice but to accept, what is really evident is the repetition of this
> concept of coercion,\” he continued, \”which is of course central to
> rape\”.
>
> \”You could call it psychological rape to explain what Rosemary Owens
> did,\” the lecturer concluded.
>
> Around that time, students began an uproar against Rose Owens, with
> numerous complaints arising, including (1) Rosemary Owens should be
> kicked out and Paul Fairall brought back in; (2) since Owens had been
> brought in the standard of law education had dropped, with students
> saying this was a complete waste of tax dollars; (3) Owens had
> publicly humiliated the editor of the Hilarian, coercing him to make a
> public apology for saying the law courses at Adelaide University were
> not all equally as easy, and some were more difficult than others.
>
> \”The allegations Owens is domineering and manipulative are therefore
> corroborated by many other students,\” a source said.
>
> \”The students know the truth but won\’t say it,\” another said, saying
> that Owens enjoyed to \”smear\” students by leaking confidential student
> information to the SASC conduct board.
>
> Using the fact that (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) had been the author of the Waverly DVD
> nutshell videos, and that as a result (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) caused an uproar in
> \”social unrest\”, Owens summoned her connections with the South
> Australian Police (SAPOL) e-crimes commissioner, and worked with
> corrupt police officers to \”abuse, harass and threaten\” (STUDENT NAME REMOVED),
> abusing the police\’s right to seize due to \”reasonable cause to
> suspect\”, which involved harassment of not only (STUDENT NAME REMOVED), but also his
> family and friends.
>
> Documents online show that much of the issues surrounding Adelaide
> University had no relationship with (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) whatsoever. There were
> complaints aimed at Rosemary Owens, Anne Hewitt, Judith Gardam, Susan
> Bartie, Laura Grenfell, Ngaire Naffine, and Bernadette Richards. For
> instance, (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) was in the law/commerce departments of the
> University, how would this have any rational connection with the
> engineering school whatsoever? Clearly, there was no \”reasonable\”
> cause to suspect. Or maybe there was \”reason\”, but it was a
> politically driven motive, rather than a sensible, rational
> explanation.
>
> \”This is a sad day for democracy, to see the dean of a law school
> abuse the \’reasonable cause to suspect\’ powers of the police, in a
> jurisdiction, South Australia, that remains the only in the world to
> have such wide police search powers,\” a University of Adelaide law
> lecturer said, \”truly sad\”.
>
> After the matter was reviewed by the SAPOL anti-corruption branch
> however, the investigation was halted, and the lawyers at the Adelaide
> University were eventually forced to drop the matter.
>
> Unfortunately, the accusations that Rosemary Owens had stalked (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) were also dropped by police, in an unfortunate end.
>
> Rosemary Owens begun her swipe when (STUDENT NAME REMOVED) was 16, when he started
> University, in what has been touted as \”child abuse\”.
>
> \”Putting child abuse and psychological rape together, makes what Rose
> Owens did \’child sex abuse\’.\”
>
> \”Owens needs to seek professional psychological help,\” a law student
> briefed on the facts from the University of Adelaide said.
>
> The matter has been forwarded to the South Australian Supreme Court\’s
> Professional Conduct Board, where an investigation is assumingly
> already underway, as initiated by other students. Given Rosemary
> Owens\’ standing in the law society however, it is highly dubious as to
> whether she will ever get a conviction.
>
> Rosemary Owens is also on the board of a United Nations committee.
>
> \”One of the most well known conventions is the protection of children
> at all costs,\” a human rights student said, \”yet look, a committee
> member that\’s abused a child is on the board.\”
>
> \”Rosemary Owens on the United Nations is a complete farce.\”

So I’ve just returned from a long summer holiday to the Adelaide Law
School. However, it’s absolute hell (please note all of these
“opinions” listed are just that – other people may have their own
views). Nevertheless, it’s absolute hell for me. Construction work is
everywhere; it’s impossible to basically get into the Law School. So
obviously I try to get to the bottom of this catastrophe.

I do a quick Google Search for “Adelaide Law School” and I find a
myriad of articles relating to Rosemary Owens, the new Dean of Law who
has replaced Paul Fairrel, the more popular Dean of Law, may I add.

This includes everything from getting rid of Rosemary Owens (source removed ); to a
petition asking to drop Rosemary Owens (source removed).

Initially, I was going to leave names out of this, but seeing as
though Rosemary Owens has now scored herself a Wikipedia page (source removed), albeit small, the only
information found on the website is her selfpromotion, and her
interest in “feminist research theory”. Talk about a biased Law
School.

Anyway, this controversial Law Dean, popular to some, in a string of
best-selling Law books; but hated by others, in a string of YouTube
videos that attempt to make fun of her inability to lead the Law
School
).

There have also been news articles asking her to step down (source removed ).

Her last least popular step was an absolute “overhaul” of the Law
degree, causing existing students to entirely restructure their
degree; in what some students have claimed to be a “pain in the ass”.

Making an absolute mockery of the Law School on the Internet, only
time will tell where she will bring the Law School. All we know for
now is she is hated, at least by the majority of those who use the
Internet.

Response:
Don’t worry about it, study something useful and positive, like one of the
commercial
disciplines.That way you can work in a competitive, free market atmsophere,
where indeed
you may develop some initiative and drive, rather than in some doomed,
anachronistic profession,
that’s just begging to be ‘butt fucked’ by deregulation….

With apologies to the lesbian, feminist, socialist academics like Rosie
girl, that do make a habit of
frequenting institutions like good old Adelaide U. Sheesh, she could get a
gig on the entry level
benches here in NSW, fuck knows Pat O’Shane is running on empty, the old
tart…

Is the bridge of Rosie’s spectacles held together by masking tape ?

Response:
Poor old Rosie eh? Hated by a group of wannabe lawyers who dislike her
wiki and think she looks bad on youtube, she must be shitting it.

I recently wrote an article which I thought might interest readers:
Okay so I’m an University of Adelaide Law School student and I’ve got to redo an exam and I am here yapping on about how boring studies in law are. I read on Vogue forums it’s basically like doing an advanced arts degree – and they are exactly spot on. It’s boring in every way and the teachers are horrible. How horrible? In fact, the Dean of our Law School has moved to UniSA to start a Law School there, and Professor Rosemary Owens has taken over the job as an “Acting” Dean. What sort of acting we talking about here? Not one worthy of Dean, should I add.
A self-admitted leftist, the Law degree is shifting to becoming more of a degree that pushes a left-wing agenda more than anything else, after all – her thesis included one on Feminist Legal Theory.
Maybe we do need to consider dropping the LL.B and replacing it with a J.D. to keep up to standards, as the Deans of the major Law Schools consider where to head in the future.

Little did I realize the effect it would have on readers. A petition has in actual fact been started to remove Professor Rosemary Owens.

I found this quite interesting and thought some of you may be interested too:
(source removed)

Don’t tend to get students that pissed off these days!

Somebody’s already commented that it is writtne like an ad and “marketing propoganda”.

Delete: University of Adelaide, please stop with this marketing bullshit. As I identified here (source removed), the University Marketing department seems to be taking a stroll on promoting their Law lecturers to sell their classes. Wikipedia is NOT an advertising space for educational institutions.Toprooflaw (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
delete. first she is the acting dean (we don’t need no hoaxes on wikipedia), next she was “promoted” to a reader in law – are you kidding me? you’re telling me this woman who encouraged research skills, is now dean? i also searched “rosemary owens” up on google, and received only 3,710 results, compared with say “richard dawkins”, which had 4,620,000 results. delete this utter crap.
spam- spam is against the law! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sincestagesince (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
delete what the fack is an acting dean? are you kidding me?Lebonesedude ude (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

During Rosemary Owens tenure, her dominating demeanor was not only renowned throughout her dealings with students, but also with media organisations and in particular, Internet companies. She was renowned for trying to elicit the IP addresses of students who made online postings, in fact, any dissatisfaction that was expressed either at her or her staff. Obviously, students soon resulted to anonymous proxy. The issue is when you progress from dominating mere students, to trying to do the same thing to Internet companies, you then start to infringe upon free speech.

When you start to see this picture built of Rosemary Owens, you start to think to yourself, it wasn’t surprised that she limited her tenure to 5 years instead of taking the usual tenure of 10 years as Head of School 😉 There is no way someone with as erratic personality as she had could even stand to last in the top job for any long period of time. In fact, this is land mark of most “psycopath” bosses. In their organisations, they tend to not be able to last for any longer than 5 years, because they are “uncovered”, or “found out” (as Rosemary Owens herself alluded to in delineating her “Imposter syndrome”).

How Rosemary Owens has tried to paint herself in receiving her “OAM” award as being somehow “humbled” by the reception of this prize is a total joke.

Anyone who has any previous contact with her will know that she is not in any way whatsoever humble. In fact, she is the exact converse of this word. She is a megalomaniac who bullies those who disagree with her strong leftist beliefs (if you can call it a belief, and not actually a delusion)

For instance, during her tenure she actually, consistently argued that she was somehow a victim of “misogyny”

Rosemary Owens should be ashamed of herself for (even though she has an Arts degree) making the Law degree at Adelaide University like an advanced arts degree. Before her tenure, the Law school at Adelaide was one of the best in the nation. After the “huge” scandal (that in short simply involved her huge personality, which can only be said to be bigger than her ego), has caused the Adelaide Law School to ramp down on par with the UniSA Law School which only opened its doors a few years ago! How Rosemary Owens can then go onto the Hilarian and to admit she was a feminist, but say that she is able to see things from both sides – but yet to branch stack the Law School with feminists is beyond my belief!

I think students (and the public) have a right to be angry about the misuse of student (and public) funds to branch stack the law school with feminists.

Let it be known to our politicians that our money is not for the use of politicking, but for making future lawyers

Remember to use an anonymous proxy when posting on WordPress. Rosemary Owens is renowned for throwing fits of rage at service providers and using legal means to censor any criticism 😉 Also try to redistribute content using other Blog hosts, Petitions and Pastebin.com so that pressure is not mounted at a single organisation 🙂

Petitions are some of the best avenues for redistribution, because they are so use to people making legal threats against them (especially powerful institutions, like the University of Adelaide, or Rosemary Owens’ attempt at using SAPOL or the Australian Federal Police)

Their experience in fighting baseless legal threats is useful to help protect free speech

I was advised that one student accused Rosemary Owens for using her inappropriate close relationship to Virginia Deegan (head of the ITD department at Adelaide University) to not only discover username and passwords of students, to hack into their accounts, and under false pretense send things from their accounts to make it seem as if though it came from them. They would then use coercive strategies to say that students had sent messages from their accounts that was “offensive, abusive, and harassing”, so that they had to report this to the law society as a way of trying to blacklist them.

Rosemary Owens has never denied asking students to blacklist themselves to the law society.

My question is why is a Dean of Law maliciously trying to blacklist students?

Given that Rosemary Owens loves writing articles about workplace bullying and harassment, work life balance, good workplace culture, and so forth – how does this behaviour not constitute bullying behaviour?

How about screaming at the editor of the Hilarian for not censoring material regarding rating law courses that she found “offensive”, that she said she would report to the law society? How does that not constitute bullying behaviour?

I would say that she has hidden behind a Machiavellian mask, which is one reason why she was even awarded an Order of Australia Medal (OAM). Anyone who has any serious connection will know Rosemary Owens to be nothing less than a megalomaniac Machiavellian bully.

This is a quotation from The Hilarian “As students awoke in Week 3 of 2011 they were greeted by the news that Rosemary Owens, the beloved (obviously used in a rhetoric sense) Dean of the Law School, had been overthrown in a bloody coup by… John Williams. Stung by WikiLeaks allegations regarding her prudent (again rhetorical) leadership of the Law School, Professor Owens’ position was proved to be untenable, especially since stepping down from her role as Dean”.

It then continues, “Dr Williams boldly… soared up to 2.19 with the simple idea fermenting in his mind that no students actually held (again, this is rhetorical) – ‘CHANGE'”.

“Rosemary Owens’ reign of responsible (rhetorical) leadership came to an abrupt end, leading the populace of law students who inhabit Ligertwood deeply saddened (rhetorical). The authors then immediately asks “what does this mean for the Hilarian”? They say that they are the Law School’s last remaining source of free media, regarding “hard hitting stories that law students know and love”. They then continue rhetorically stating they “welcome our new supreme overlord”. They also say, “Oh and Dr Williams, if you need us to run any smear campaigns for you, by all means let us know”. They then finish saying “We accept payment in.. or even better, money!”

Although we can’t see any earlier publications, it is clear that students had nothing less than hatred 😐 for the Dean of Law Rosemary Owens. She had left a mark of desire amongst students to leak information, that she would not be toppled by anything less than a “bloody coup”, that she had restricted “free media”, created an impression that the Dean of Law was a “supreme overlord”, and was engaged in “smear campaigns” against students. Like one internet publications also states, Rosemary Owens was known as one of the most vicious Deans of Laws the University of Adelaide has ever had the good opportunity of having

It also again emphasizes in a comedic way that Rosemary Owens, a so called “dinosaur”, failed to see that any students ACTUALLY wanted to see – “Change” – Change away from a domineering “supreme overlord” type style Head of School, Change away from someone who would censor free speech in the Hilarian (which caused students to take up Internet postings), Change away from “smear campaigns” against their own students (is Rosemary Owens a teacher or… well, who actually smears students?)

I’m assuming she’s in her 70’s and she probably went to law school in the 50’s. Back in the 50’s they use to have corporal punishment, and she still uses that type of abusive type method instead of one that is empathetic

It’s the whole nature or nurture thing. Rosemary Owens is the product of her own era

I think the issue is when you’re a “Do what I say not what I do” Dean is that, when you on one hand write research papers that promote diversity and freedom in workplace law, but yet provide a draconion environment for students to work in – students have a right to ask, why the hypocrisy?

The good thing about Rosemary Owens was that she gave the law school a “presence”. John Williams is a bit of an absentee Dean. John Williams is a “nice guy”, but what another person refers to as dominating, can be seen by others to be a “strong” leader.

Rosemary Owens did a lot of things that were very controversial during her tenure, but what she cannot said to have done is nothing. By being an “all lovable” Dean, John Williams has potentially taken the Adelaide Law School backwards

John Williams is more like the previous Adelaide Law School Dean, Paul Fairell. They are “people persons”. They know how to get along with people they don’t like

Rosemary Owen was HOPELESS at doing that, constantly threatening people she didn’t like (and threatening freedom of speech, and independent journalism at The Hilarian), engaging in nepotism (employing staff who had political ideologies aligned with her feminist thought)

The worst part is Rose Owens failed to even realise any of this during her tenure – Or maybe she did and resigned. My thought is that she resigned for an altogether different reason and that was because she figured she didn’t have many “friends” left up in high places after her bouts of rage

It’s a complete joke that Rosemary Owens was given an OAM medal for her “contributions” to the “corporate workplace”. What she actually did was the complete opposite – narcissistic and Machiavellian – and when she wouldn’t get her way, would throw public tantrums, accusing others of being misogynist, and that the only reason why her ideas were rejected was because she was a woman. That way, she always got her way

1. Lack of Self control
Rosemary Owens exhibits lack of self control in both her speech and her verbal assault of others. The lack of discipline and judgement comments she makes, should be characterised as slander.

2. Domineering attitude
Rosemary Owens domineers by viewing other people as a means to achieve her own personal ends. Her being Head of School was not about helping students, but about exploitation. The faculty existed to “serve her vision” rather than all the people together to serve the vision of the university. She domineers by making people feel unsafe and insecure should they object to her proposals and policies

3. Verbally violent
Rosemary Owens exhibits anger in dealing with those whom she degrees with and who disagre with her. She does this amongst other ways by putting people down. She leads with a culture of fear instead of a culture of transparency and safety. People are afraid to ask questions or challenge ideas. She is verbally abusive to people who challenge her, disagree with her, or question her. Rosemary uses words to demean, attack or disparage others

4. Loss of respect
As a result of her persistent treatment of others, the entire faculty lost respect for her leadership

“As students awoke in Week 3 of 2011 they were greeted by the news that Rosemary Owens, the beloved ( 😉 ) Dean of the Law School, had been overthrown in a bloody coup by… John Williams. Stung by WikiLeaks allegations regarding her prudent ( 😉 ) leadership of the Law School, Professor Owens’ position was proved to be untenable, especially since stepping down from her role as Dean”.

“Dr Williams boldly… soared up to 2.19 with the simple idea fermenting in his mind that no students actually held ( 😉 ) – ‘CHANGE’”.

“Rosemary Owens’ reign of responsible ( 😉 ) leadership came to an abrupt end, leading the populace of law students who inhabit Ligertwood deeply saddened ( 😉 ). “What does this mean for the Hilarian”? They say that they are the Law School’s last remaining source of free media, regarding “hard hitting stories that law students know and love”. “Welcome our new supreme overlord”. “Oh and Dr Williams, if you need us to run any smear campaigns ( 😉 ) for you, by all means let us know”. “We accept payment in.. or even better, money!”

Well what I gather from that statement – is that – it is not just a small group of students who were subject to smear campaigns by Rosemary Owens – but that it was common knowledge Rosemary Owens was engaging in this activity

Between her web page on Fri 18 Sep 2009, and a new revision on Fri Mar 18 2011, Rosemary Owens seems to have removed Book Chapters that she was the “Sole author” for that are all extreme left wing feminist chapters:

‘Reproducing Law’s Worker: Regulatory Tensions in the Pursuit of “Population, Participation and Productivity”‘ in Christopher Arup, Peter Gahan, John Howe, Richard Johnstone, Richard Mitchell, and Anthony O’Donnell (eds) Labour Law and Labour Market Regulation: Essays on the Construction, Constitution and Regulation of Labour Markets and Work Relationships (Federation Press, Sydney, 2006), pp 410-431.
104
105 “Engendering Flexibility in a World of Precarious Work” in Judy Fudge and Rosemary Owens (eds) Precarious Work, Women and the New Economy: The Challenge to Legal Norms (Hart Publishing, Oxford UK and Portland Oregon, 2006), pp329-352.
106
107 “Taking Leave: Work and Family in Australian Law and Policy” in Joanne Conaghan and Kerry Rittich (eds) Labour Law, Work, and Family: Critical and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005), pp237-259.
108
109 “Federation, Citizenship and Women in Australian Constitutional Law” in Brian Howe and Alan Nichols (eds) Spirit of Australia: Religion and Citizenship in National Life (Australian Theological Forum & Openbook Publishers, Adelaide, 2001) pp 90-129.
110
111 “Working in the Sex Market” in Sexing The Subject Of Law (edited by Ngaire Naffine and Rosemary J Owens, Sweet and Maxwell, London, and LBC Information Services, Sydney, 1997), pp 119-146.

Also:
Rosemary has published extensively on legal issues relating to non-standard and precarious forms of work and the participation of women in the labour market. She is particularly interested in the legal construction of women at work in both international and national legal systems, and in the development and protection of social and economic rights in the global era. 79 In her research work Professor Rosemary Owens focuses primarily on the Law of Work (including employment, labour and anti-discrimination law), but she also has strong interests in public law especially constitutional law.
79 80
80 In 2004 she convened, with Prof Judy Fudge of Osgoode Hall Law School, a workshop on “Precarious Work, Women and the New Economy: The Challenge to Legal Norms” at the International Institute for the Sociology of Law in Onati, Spain. This project brought together academics from the Universities of Cambridge, Kent, and Oxford in the UK; Cornell, UCLA and Yale in the USA; Toronto, York and Quebec in Canada; Utrecht in Netherlands; Lund in Sweden; and Griffith and Adelaide in Australia.

Few things Rosemary Owens edited out on her May 24 2007 revision of her web page:

When she joined the academic staff of the Law School at the University of Adelaide in 1987, Rosemary Owens embarked on a new career. She had previously worked as a secondary school teacher in the United Kingdom and Australia, having gained degrees in History Honours and Education from the University of Adelaide. When her children were young she returned to the University of Adelaide to study law, and graduated with First Class Honours receiving the The Angus Parsons Prize and The Law Society of South Australia Centenary Prize.
40
41 Rosemary Owens was initially appointed as a tutor in law in 1987 and then two years later she was appointed as a lecturer. Since that time Rosemary has been promoted to a senior lectureship (in 1995), and in 2005 she became an Associate Professor and Reader in Law.

Just like Bernadette Richards, a garbage high school teacher who students hated so left to do something else!

Wait, didn’t someone mention in another post that on “badbadteacher.com” it was claimed that Rosemary Owens had sex with an “underage student” – but this was committed in an overseas jurisdiction so wasn’t recognised by the authorities in Australia?

Also, is there any relevance that when teaching tertiary students, Rosemary Owens didn’t require a “Working with Children Check”???

Rosemary Owens was actually recommended for senior positions in academia, but because of continued attacks against her, has been blocked from taking up a key managerial position in the University. Owens has been accused of being:
* “Too political”
* Attacked for the University’s “poor research grading” compared to UniSA in late assessments
* Owens criticised for “poor performance”

I will put on public record that she used “unethical if not illegal” means to screw over the editors at the Hilarian. These were the words used to describe the incidence by other STAFF at the uni. I will let the students raise these issues in a place where they will be legally protected – such as at a court room 🙂

You get that fat by excessive food intake and physical inactivity over a substantial period of time. Lack of self control. Greediness. All things that you would expect from a narcissist and psychopath!

Maybe if she didn’t spend so much time in front of a computer screen, scheming over how to screw students over, whilst eating chocolate, and got outside to do some exercise, she wouldn’t be so freaking overweight!

There’s a reason why they put the words “overweight” and “psycho” together – a true overweight psycho!

I feel disappointed at the outrageous remarks leveled out at Ms Rosemary Owens. I was her student in Constitutional Law back in 1995 and I have had the greatest respect for the manner in which she conducted herself. I was a bit older than the rest in the class and I noticed that even then there were unfair comments and criticisms about her which more often than not centered on the fact that her style incorporated discipline which the modern day bunch preferred to describe as the application of archaic principles that belonged to “her era”.. Many in the class lacked the discipline and failed in their ability to differentiate the time between partying and studying. They had to face Rosemary with their inadequacies at study time and the Barman at party time. Naturally for them as “lawyers in the making” they were heading for the wrong Bar.Rosemary should not be blamed.